ontheway, sorry, I cannot summon up the energy to reply to such a long post, but picking out one thing, the infrastructure:

I would agree with you that the transport (especially road) network in the USA is a sprawling, highly polluting mess. I, like you, would like to see more efforts to build up local communities and reduce reliance on the car, but you've got it and now you've got to live with it. You can't go back in time and undo all the road-building, so now somebody has to maintain it. Otherwise this happens:

Of course the things already constructed consititute assets, some of value and some not. These assets need to be privatized as quickly as possible so that they can be maintained properly, realocated to other uses or dismantled and the land put to better use.

However, in your particular example there is this:

The NTSB cited a design flaw as the likely cause of the collapse, and asserted that additional weight on the bridge at the time of the collapse contributed to the catastrophic failure.[6]

Part of the human condition is that people, even professionals, make mistakes and accidents do happen. This will ever be so.

(It's similar to the fact that a design flaw that made the building reliant on a single support member that failed during the fire was responsible for the demise of Building 7 of the World Trade Center complex, and the fact that the twin towers were never designed to withstand the collision with airplanes as large as those that struck and caused the cascade failures witnessed by all.)

The realities of the physical sciences are what we must never overlook and these realities are what make it impossible for socialism in any of its popular forms to ever succeed. Socialists, even in the areas of infrastructure and education, live in a fantasy land and deny reality. The only economic system that takes into account the real world and will let all humanity survive and prosper, in liberty, dignity and prosperity, is the free market.

(It's similar to the fact that a design flaw that made the building reliant on a single support member that failed during the fire was responsible for the demise of Building 7 of the World Trade Center complex, and the fact that the twin towers were never designed to withstand the collision with airplanes as large as those that struck and caused the cascade failures witnessed by all.)

Except that twin towers were in fact specifically designed to withstand large airplane collisions (even from multiple aircraft). And that Building 7 was a well-built, modern steel and concrete structure that couldn't possible have collapsed into its own footprint at the speed of gravity from a mere fire alone (such a thing had never happened in before in history).

Until then, the topic that interests me is slavery, and the effective rebranding of that concept. I wonder how many of any of the people on this thread have ever lived for more than fifteen minutes in the South of the US. Anyone who has lived for any length of time there can't help but have noticed that virtually every counter employee of any fast food joint is black. That some fair majority of store clerks are also black. Those who look a little deeper will see that those farm workers who aren't migrant hispanics are also black. The only salient difference between these workers and those of 200 years ago is that today they can quit doing the lowest tier labor. But still, they earn only enough to be considered a subsitence wage, which is the effective equivalent of what their labor earned them as slaves, 200 years ago. Really, it's just rebranding, with a benefit or two.

The most sympathetic and generous interpretation of the above:

you're trolling

Shove [Ad-hominem language] into whatever hole feels most comfie to you, and know that from time to time, I do troll, but also know that in this, I am deadly serious.

Perhaps because he knows that it is impossible to reason with a 'True Believer.'

Is "True Believer" the new euphemism to describe those people with whom it is a waste of time to argue?

Yes

It's not really new. It's from the book of that title by Eric Hoffer (1951). He asserts that true believers are a mental type and the particular ideology doesn't really matter. What the true believer is looking for is emotional security. Unless you can offer them that, then yes, it is useless to talk to them.

Perhaps because he knows that it is impossible to reason with a 'True Believer.'

Is "True Believer" the new euphemism to describe those people with whom it is a waste of time to argue?

Yes

It's not really new. It's from the book of that title by Eric Hoffer (1951). He asserts that true believers are a mental type and the particular ideology doesn't really matter. What the true believer is looking for is emotional security. Unless you can offer them that, then yes, it is useless to talk to them.

It's not really new. It's from the book of that title by Eric Hoffer (1951). He asserts that true believers are a mental type and the particular ideology doesn't really matter. What the true believer is looking for is emotional security. Unless you can offer them that, then yes, it is useless to talk to them.

Oh I get it, you mean it's like trying to talk with you about your Lord and Savior Barrack Obama?

All empirical evidence shows that everything the government touches turns to ruin.

WWII

One of the most ruinous episodes in all of human history. Forcing young men to fight and die in a war that the American public had no interest in being involved in, war profiteering, firebombing German cities, nuking Japanese civilians, pardoning war criminals in return for their services, etc. And this after Wall Street built up the Nazis' military capacity, as well as that of the USSR (which is well documented).

Quote:

Education

A complete joke. Public schools are a disgrace. I would never send my children there.

Quote:

Interstate Highways

You mean the one that is currently falling apart?

Quote:

Civil Rights

Would not have been necessary had the governments not previously imposed Jim Crow laws (and slavery before that). I also believe that people should in fact be allowed to be bigoted or racist or whatever just as long as they do so on their own property and mind their own business. While I personally dislike racism, I don't think it should be illegal. Of course government discrimination based on race or gender etc. should be completely outlawed, but private freedom of association should most definitely be allowed.

WWII: One of the most ruinous episodes in all of human history. Forcing young men to fight and die in a war that the American public had no interest in being involved in, war profiteering, firebombing German cities, nuking Japanese civilians, pardoning war criminals in return for their services, etc. And this after Wall Street built up the Nazis' military capacity, as well as that of the USSR (which is well documented).

Oh, absolutely, the world would be a much better place had the Axis powers won that conflict.

Quote:

Education: A complete joke. Public schools are a disgrace. I would never send my children there.

If you ever find anything that will bear your spawn, I agree that you should protect our public schools by keeping whatever it is that crawls out of your muck out of them.

Quote:

Interstate Highways: You mean the one that is currently falling apart?

Yes, I mean the ones that are currently falling apart due to lack of job-producing infrastructure spending.

Quote:

Civil Rights: Would not have been necessary had the governments not previously imposed Jim Crow laws (and slavery before that). I also believe that people should in fact be allowed to be bigoted or racist or whatever just as long as they do so on their own property and mind their own business. While I personally dislike racism, I don't think it should be illegal. Of course government discrimination based on race or gender etc. should be completely outlawed, but private freedom of association should most definitely be allowed.

Are you for really real? You must be sock, the Stephen Colbert of Dave's. Governments imposed Jim Crow and slavery, knowing of course, that their constituents hated these ideas.

WWII: One of the most ruinous episodes in all of human history. Forcing young men to fight and die in a war that the American public had no interest in being involved in, war profiteering, firebombing German cities, nuking Japanese civilians, pardoning war criminals in return for their services, etc. And this after Wall Street built up the Nazis' military capacity, as well as that of the USSR (which is well documented).

Oh, absolutely, the world would be a much better place had the Axis powers won that conflict.

False dilemma.

Quote:

Quote:

Education: A complete joke. Public schools are a disgrace. I would never send my children there.

If you ever find anything that will bear your spawn, I agree that you should protect our public schools by keeping whatever it is that crawls out of your muck out of them.

Wow. If you ever had the nerve to say such a thing to a person's face you'd find yourself down on the floor in an instant in a puddle or your own blood and tears... How lucky for you that the internet is the perfect place for rude cowardly scum like yourself to mouth off with impunity.

Quote:

Quote:

Interstate Highways: You mean the one that is currently falling apart?

Yes, I mean the ones that are currently falling apart due to lack of job-producing infrastructure spending.

Yes, because the government is already bankrupt from spending trillions on wars, police state measures, and bailouts to the banks. Hence, the government is useless.

Quote:

Are you for really real? You must be sock, the Stephen Colbert of Dave's. Governments imposed Jim Crow and slavery, knowing of course, that their constituents hated these ideas.

Completely irrelevant. Government is supposed to obey the constitution, not take majority rule into account. But keep making all the excuses you want: either way, the government is to blame.

Quote:

Quote:

WPA:What, leaf-raking?? Don't make me laugh.

That, and just for instance, the Tensessee Valley Authority.

FDR (Stalin in the White House) was a failure as a president and his ruinous economic policies extended the depression for nearly a decade. The only thing that "saved" him was WWII. Everyone with even an iota of historical knowledge knows that. I guess that leaves you out.

One of the most ruinous episodes in all of human history. Forcing young men to fight and die in a war that the American public had no interest in being involved in, war profiteering, firebombing German cities, nuking Japanese civilians, pardoning war criminals in return for their services, etc. And this after Wall Street built up the Nazis' military capacity, as well as that of the USSR (which is well documented).

All true except the emboldened parts. American support skyrocketed after the attack on Pearl Harbor, and most all reports of Japanese sentiment at the time should leave you cautious in labeling those not in uniform as 'civilians.'

One of the most ruinous episodes in all of human history. Forcing young men to fight and die in a war that the American public had no interest in being involved in, war profiteering, firebombing German cities, nuking Japanese civilians, pardoning war criminals in return for their services, etc. And this after Wall Street built up the Nazis' military capacity, as well as that of the USSR (which is well documented).

All true except the emboldened parts. American support skyrocketed after the attack on Pearl Harbor, and most all reports of Japanese sentiment at the time should leave you cautious in labeling those not in uniform as 'civilians.'

I agree with you, gg. But visitorq is right on principle, and he's even right in the specific case of Nagasaki.

One of the most ruinous episodes in all of human history. Forcing young men to fight and die in a war that the American public had no interest in being involved in, war profiteering, firebombing German cities, nuking Japanese civilians, pardoning war criminals in return for their services, etc. And this after Wall Street built up the Nazis' military capacity, as well as that of the USSR (which is well documented).

All true except the emboldened parts. American support skyrocketed after the attack on Pearl Harbor, and most all reports of Japanese sentiment at the time should leave you cautious in labeling those not in uniform as 'civilians.'

I agree with you, gg. But visitorq is right on principle, and he's even right in the specific case of Nagasaki.

Even in the specific case of Nagasaki ...

Add to that Dresden, and I'll wholeheatedly agree these were terrible things. Terrible things for which I haven't one bit of regret. In short, war is terrible and awful things happen in it - if you don't like the results of the wars you start, don't start them.

Geneva Conventions? A sweet idea dreamt up by sweet old ladies who imagined that everyone would abide by their rules for acceptable ways to kill each other. Even the signatories to the Conventions scoff at them, let alone the non-signatories.

As for the specific case of Japan and WWII, the more I learn of Japan, the more I'm inclined to agree with several Korean students I had last year. That is, it's a pity we didn't drop three or four more, and it's comforting to know that one of the reasons we didn't is that we didn't have enough fissionable material. That is, the heart was willing, but the flesh was not. Too bad.

So, I get it, visitorq, Government is evil. Always has been, always will be. I agree, itís just that thereís no alternative to it, save chaos. So the task before us, as citizens, is to make it better, not to decry its very existence.

But in your case, I suspect that decrying government is a bit of a red herring. Itís not government you hate, but the current government of one very specific country. If Iím to take you at face value (not at all a given), Iíll have to assume you loathe the recent, late GOP government as much as you loathe the current Democratic one. You and the Pauls (Ron and Rand) have a few interesting and compelling ideas, but it all falls apart when looked at very closely at all.

You do have some interesting commonalities, though. That is, youíre all willing to take stances based on issues that are very much a matter open to debate and declare your views to be incontrovertible fact, and then draw conclusions from those facts and consider the case to be settled. (That is, you dress up your political views as economic science.)

In your specific case, you state your opinion on the historical record as fact, and then ridicule anyone who dares take issue with your assumptions. Itís a well-known, tried and true bully tactic, but itís not fooling anyone. Youíre just a cretin with certain political beliefs trying to dress them up in something fancy, a la the lunatic Ayn Rand, who also had some interesting and compelling ideas, most of which donít stand up to reason.

Youíre just a sad, pathetic tea-bagger who canít stand the idea that youíre losing the ideological war for the heart and soul of America, and youíre dressing it up in clothes that wonít make you look like a heartless dollop of dung, except that itís not working.

A personal aside Ė Iíve said, face to face, an extraordinarily many ugly things to an extraordinarily many ugly people in my life, with impunity. It has never once been I who ended up a bleeding, teary mess on the floor. Oh, Iím not all that big or all that bad, but in the extremity, I am known to fight dirty. Geneva Conventions be damned. One of my mottos, ever since I had to deal with thugs like you, is: Donít ef with me Ė I ef back. So ... bring it, if you dare.

And, to point out just one of your logical absurdities, nothing in the US Constitution barred slavery until the 1860s, so by your definition (and realityís definition Ė a rare concurrence, Iím sure), the government of the North subverted the constitution AND the will of the people to fight its unholy war against the South. Yet at one point in this thread, you seemed to be saying that slavery was a thing the government imposed on the country in contradistinction to the peopleís will, even though the people had approved that constitution barely 70 years prior to that war.

Youíre a slug, a rat, a flea. You are vermin. Stand before me tomorrow and I will say it to your face, then walk away unbloodied, unbowed and without a tear to waste on you.